New Congresswomen Lauren Bohbert Says New Bill Makes Gays and Transvestites Supreme to Everyone Else

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK Slick. [sic] Two can play the same game of answering questions with another question

What right does ANY business ower [sic] - who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant [sic] by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact arbitrarily refuse service to any one [sic] for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil [sic] society?

You write like you think, Sport.

I didn't say anything about refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door or about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone for any reason, did I?

Rather:

By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?​

​

Thanks.

Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing it again right now by saying that you didn't say anything about refusing service. At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games


And, I posed this question to you which you have been unwilling or unable to answer:

"What right does ANY business ower- who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact arbitrarily refuse service to any one for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil society?
How do we function as a society if no one can be sure that they will not be humiliated when they enter a business? You mightalso want to consider the fact that the original civil rights act, as well as numerous state laws against discrimination were never sucsessfully challanged on constitutional grounds. Why do you think that is. ?"

 

[San Souci]

Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!

It has been pushed to Memorial day, if not then July 4th They have to keep it alive and the moronic minions will follow

 

[Ringtone]

Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing again right now by saying that you didn't say anything about refusing service. At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games

Calm down, Sunshine. The above may be interpreted to mean something I never intended. Hence:

I still didn't say anything about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, did I?​

​

Rather:​

​

By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?​

​

Thanks.​

 

[Ringtone]

Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing it again right now by saying that you didn't say anything about refusing service. At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games

You really do need to calm down, Sunshine. You're responses are overwrought.

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

Is the gov'ment making you turn gay?

You seem to be confused, obsessed with juvenile, little boy talk. It's almost as if you're a child. Perhaps you can answer the question in light of the caveat.

Given that I never said anything about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, by what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

Thanks.

 

[San Souci]

Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!

It has been pushed to Memorial day, if not then July 4th They have to keep it alive and the moronic minions will follow

In reality ,Q-Anon is a fear tactic to SCARE people. Made up by Bezos. The Democrats sure learned a lot from Goebbles.

 

[AFrench2]

Hey, Ringtone, dude - can you stop Triple posting in my topic please? Your signature is huge bro, when you triple post it takes up my entire screen and my eyes bleed.

 

[Bush92]

This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.

She is a highly intelligent woman. Democrats want to legitimize every perversion. Watch your anus kids.

 

[playtime]

Is the gov'ment making you turn gay?

You seem to be confused, obsessed with juvenile, little boy talk. It's almost as if you're a child. Perhaps you can answer the question in light of the caveat.

Given that I never said anything about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, by what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

Thanks.

<pfffft> i am female, probably older than you ... & unlike you - can recognise sarcasm when it's right in front of you.

i also answered you - the 14th amendment means equal protection under the LAW. you know ... a rule that when broken, has consequences. if a biz'nez enjoys the tax breaks a municipality gives it to set up & serve the public with its goods or services ... then they just don't have a choice to serve or not serve the tax paying public. if they want that choice - then they need to refuse all tax breaks, perhaps become a private biz'nez that requires a membership with private fire & 'police' protection as well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing again right now by saying that you didn't say anything about refusing service. At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games

Calm down, Sunshine. The above may be interpreted to mean something I never intended. Hence:

I still didn't say anything about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, did I?​

​

Rather:​

​

By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?​

​

Thanks.​

If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?

.... making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

evil or icky? Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about

 

[Ringtone]

If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?

.... making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

evil or icky? Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about

Evil or icky are the terms that playtime used, you know. as he mocked the wont of others having their inherent rights respected. He thinks their expectations per natural and constitutional law are stupid and irrelevant. He thinks it's okay for the government to treat others like second-class citizens . . . sort of like you.

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

 

[Ringtone]

<pfffft> i am female, probably older than you ... & unlike you - can recognise sarcasm when it's right in front of you.

i also answered you - the 14th amendment means equal protection under the LAW. you know ... a rule that when broken, has consequences. if a biz'nez enjoys the tax breaks a municipality gives it to set up & serve the public with its goods or services ... then they just don't have a choice to serve or not serve the tax paying public. if they want that choice - then they need to refuse all tax breaks, perhaps become a private biz'nez that requires a membership with private fire & 'police' protection as well.

The pertinent concerns go to the inherent rights of the First Amendment.

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

Hey, Ringtone, dude - can you stop Triple posting in my topic please? Your signature is huge bro, when you triple post it takes up my entire screen and my eyes bleed.


View attachment 464632

Is that better, Sport?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide as a buisness, to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public.

Now just a few more things to clear up

1. Do you think that a buisness owner should be allowed to selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public to a specific group who they disapprove op

2. Can you cite an instance where a business owner was forced toprovide a service or a product tothat they do normally provide to anyone?.

3. Regardless of your answeres to 1 & 2, what does any of this have to do with the equality act?

4. Lasgtly for now, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Equality Act woul undermine parental rights and authority. I suspect that you just made that up or heard from some nut case on OAN or Newsmax

 

[Ringtone]

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide as a buisness, [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they normall [sic] provide to the general public.

Let's stick to one point at a time. You're still having difficulty with the following. . . .

Well, as you're still using little boy think, t's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.

That's weird, given that the latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all, and only tyrants would demand that one do so or else . . . almost as if they owned one, indeed, almost as if one were their slave That doesn't seem very civil to me. That strikes me as a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law.

Thanks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide as a buisness, [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they normall [sic] provide to the general public.

Let's stick to one point at a time. You're still having difficulty with the following. . . .

Well, as you're still using little boy think, t's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

That's weird, given that the latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all, and only tyrants would demand that one do so or else . . . almost as if they owned one, indeed, almost as if one were their slave That doesn't seem very civil to me. That strikes me as a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law.

Thanks.

Holy fucking shit! Just when I thought that we were beginning to communicate in some rational way, you, rather than addressing my questions, respond with more evasive and dishonest bullshit. I made it clear that I do indeed understand the difference that you referr to, and you are pretending that I do not, or is it that you just not understand what I said?. What the fuck is wrong with you. You are monumentally agravating .

To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness should be required to provide goods and services, that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. That is just fucking stupid

At the same time, I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante against those who they disapprove of on religous or any othe rgrounds . There you have it. NOW answer my questions or get the hell out of here. Try some honesty for a change.

Again, the questions that you are running from:

1. Do you think that a buisness owner should be allowed to selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public to a specific group who they disapprove op

2. Can you cite an instance where a business owner was forced toprovide a service or a product tothat they do normally provide to anyone?.

3. Regardless of your answeres to 1 & 2, what does any of this have to do with the equality act?

4. Lastly for now, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Equality Act woul undermine parental rights and authority. I suspect that you just made that up or heard from some nut case on OAN or Newsmax

 

[Ringtone]

You obviously need to rewrite what you wrote, dummy:

Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide as a buisness, [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference [between] that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they normall [sic] provide to the general public.

​

You're distinction in the above is nonexistent. You write like you think. Presumably, that which is normally provided by any given business is the very same thing a business normally provides to the general public.

And, ultimately, your distinction, whatever it is, is nonsensical relative to my actual distinction . . . as the latter just keeps flying right over your head.

To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness [sic] should be required to provide goods and services, [sic] that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. [sic] That is just fucking stupid

Well, now, this is clearer, isn't it? You seem to think I'm a mind reader.

I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante[sic] against those who the disapprove of on religous [sic] or any othe rgrounds .

And now you're back to duh. Zoom Right over your head again!

Once again! It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.

The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!

The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!

I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.

I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.

What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.

What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.

It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to who the provider is and has every right to be!

Knock. knock. Anybody home?

 

[playtime]

If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?

.... making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

evil or icky? Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about

Evil or icky are the terms that playtime used, you know. as he mocked the wont of others having their inherent rights respected. He thinks their expectations per natural and constitutional law are stupid and irrelevant. He thinks it's okay for the government to treat others like second-class citizens . . . sort of like you.

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.

like i said. i am female. as in SHE.

'inherent' rights? lol ... to discriminate?

nope. not in a secular nation. the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion. by the way - you can be as christian or jewish or mooooooslem or druid all you want in your private life. but when it comes to society - when money is concerned for goods & services, then all are equal cause money is green no matter who's got the pocket.

 

[Ringtone]

like i said. i am female. as in SHE.

'inherent' rights? lol ... to discriminate?

nope. not in a secular nation. the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion. by the way - you can be as christian or jewish or mooooooslem or druid all you want in your private life. but when it comes to society - when money is concerned for goods & services, then all are equal cause money is green no matter who's got the pocket.

Neither natural law nor constitutional law gives one the freedom from religion, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. One has the freedom of religion, and the First Amendment recognizes one's inherent right to express/practice one's religion in private and public life, you fascist imbecile.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.